Question Time, the BNP et al.
Oct. 23rd, 2009 01:26 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sparkindarknessThe leader of the BNP, a man severely contending for the most Vile Waste of Skin In Britain award, Neil Griffin, has appeared on Question Time. There has been considerable debate on whether the racist and generally repellent BNP should be given legitimacy by allowing them on to this highly respected programme.
And I’m torn.
Firstly, I discard the idea of “free speech.” It’s not applicable. We have the right to Free Speech - but my right to Free Speech doesn’t mean the BBC has to invite me to Question Time or any other television programme. My right to Free Speech does not require the BBC to broadcast my views. Free speech does not demand others give you a large megaphone - no, not even the license fee funded BBC. It is not censoring the BNP or infringing their rights if we refuse to be their megaphone.
Nor do I accept that the BBC has to give its time to the BNP to be unbiased. The BNP are a fringe party. We do not expect to see fringe parties on Question Time - there’d be little time for anything else. We do not expect to see the Greens, the Law and Justice Party, the English Democrats, UKIP, Respect or any of the other crazy and mildly amusing additions I see lurking around the bottom of my ballot paper to appear on Question Time. It would be ridiculous to suggest that the BBC is unbiased because they do not give a stage to the lunatic fringe.
Those aside the real issue with me is one of Legitimacy vs Giving them enough rope.
On the Legitimacy angle I worry about us presenting the BNP as important. They are a fringe party, as I’ve said. And most people do treat them as such. But they’re in the media nearly constantly lately, they’re being invited to Question Time, they’re causing many people (and, ironically, I suppose I should include myself) to write and say serious things about how awful they are. We’re treating them like a party. We’re treating them like some kind of reasonable, plausible force. We’re treating them seriously rather than like the sick joke they are.
They don’t deserve this kind of attention. They don’t deserve this publicity. They don’t deserve this regard. They deserve to be ignored and treated with the withering contempt they deserve
The flip side is that, for all I’ve heard Nick Griffin declared to be a good spin doctor and a politician and for all that he has tried to sanitise the image of his party, it remains difficult to put perfume on shit and convince us it smells sweet. And I do find that the longer the BNP is allowed to talk the more their vileness becomes apparent. And a forum like Question Time would not favour them (in fact, he seemed to spend no small amount of time desperately denying quotes). The scrutiny is not kind to them and they can’t cover themselves indefinitely nor can he really compete on a level against real train politicians of major parties who have honed their skills against each other for decades. I hate most of them but they’re GOOD with words.
Actually, I’d make a point of going after lower level members. Those at the top, like Nick Griffin, are too savvy to say the vile things we know they represent - aim for lower down the organisation and get some perfect quotes that show them for the vile creatures they are. For Example: BNP member Nick Ericksen who said of women “Like gongs, they need to be struck regularly.” He also described rape a as a “myth.“ (I’m not going to repeat the other misogynist crap he said because I’m still aghast at it and would hate it to appear in my space even as a quite) That is vile - that is so openly and repellently vile that near anyone reading it is going to be appalled. Hunt down these candidates and get them TALKING.
I’m still torn. I’m inclined to say “drag them out in the sunlight for all to see” but why should we even bother looking at them?
And I’m torn.
Firstly, I discard the idea of “free speech.” It’s not applicable. We have the right to Free Speech - but my right to Free Speech doesn’t mean the BBC has to invite me to Question Time or any other television programme. My right to Free Speech does not require the BBC to broadcast my views. Free speech does not demand others give you a large megaphone - no, not even the license fee funded BBC. It is not censoring the BNP or infringing their rights if we refuse to be their megaphone.
Nor do I accept that the BBC has to give its time to the BNP to be unbiased. The BNP are a fringe party. We do not expect to see fringe parties on Question Time - there’d be little time for anything else. We do not expect to see the Greens, the Law and Justice Party, the English Democrats, UKIP, Respect or any of the other crazy and mildly amusing additions I see lurking around the bottom of my ballot paper to appear on Question Time. It would be ridiculous to suggest that the BBC is unbiased because they do not give a stage to the lunatic fringe.
Those aside the real issue with me is one of Legitimacy vs Giving them enough rope.
On the Legitimacy angle I worry about us presenting the BNP as important. They are a fringe party, as I’ve said. And most people do treat them as such. But they’re in the media nearly constantly lately, they’re being invited to Question Time, they’re causing many people (and, ironically, I suppose I should include myself) to write and say serious things about how awful they are. We’re treating them like a party. We’re treating them like some kind of reasonable, plausible force. We’re treating them seriously rather than like the sick joke they are.
They don’t deserve this kind of attention. They don’t deserve this publicity. They don’t deserve this regard. They deserve to be ignored and treated with the withering contempt they deserve
The flip side is that, for all I’ve heard Nick Griffin declared to be a good spin doctor and a politician and for all that he has tried to sanitise the image of his party, it remains difficult to put perfume on shit and convince us it smells sweet. And I do find that the longer the BNP is allowed to talk the more their vileness becomes apparent. And a forum like Question Time would not favour them (in fact, he seemed to spend no small amount of time desperately denying quotes). The scrutiny is not kind to them and they can’t cover themselves indefinitely nor can he really compete on a level against real train politicians of major parties who have honed their skills against each other for decades. I hate most of them but they’re GOOD with words.
Actually, I’d make a point of going after lower level members. Those at the top, like Nick Griffin, are too savvy to say the vile things we know they represent - aim for lower down the organisation and get some perfect quotes that show them for the vile creatures they are. For Example: BNP member Nick Ericksen who said of women “Like gongs, they need to be struck regularly.” He also described rape a as a “myth.“ (I’m not going to repeat the other misogynist crap he said because I’m still aghast at it and would hate it to appear in my space even as a quite) That is vile - that is so openly and repellently vile that near anyone reading it is going to be appalled. Hunt down these candidates and get them TALKING.
I’m still torn. I’m inclined to say “drag them out in the sunlight for all to see” but why should we even bother looking at them?